Uncontroversial issues

Over the years, starting from the old Sintercom forum, which was shut down in 2001, and soc.culture.singapore, I've been involved in numerous online arguments with people. While I find some of the issues to be thought-provoking and interesting, many of them should have been decisively settled by sheer weight of logic and evidence. I am tired of arguing over the same things again and again, so I will be starting a series of posts to discuss some uncontroversial issues on which I have very strong views. I consider them uncontroversial because it is no longer possible for a well-informed rational person to sustain an argument over them. This does not mean that they won't touch some raw nerves. Nevertheless, arguments will continue because some people will hold on to their positions for irrational and emotional reasons.

In some sense, the series of posts will be a repository of arguments that I have used for nearly a decade. In my opinion, my arguments are still good and I have not found the need to change them.

Here is a list of uncontroversial issues that I will like to discuss:

1. Mother tongue and ethnicity
2. Foreign students in Singapore universities
3. Gender equality and national service
4. Homosexuality and the consequence of legalizing it
5. The scholarship system
6. Promoting bilingualism in Singapore
7. Racism in Singapore

Hopefully, I will like to finish discussing all of them before the year is over.

Abs Exerciser for George Bush

Taken from CNN:

President George W. Bush and first lady Laura Bush also were remembered by their Arab friends. The Saudi king gave the first lady an $85,000 sapphire and diamond jewelry set and a $10,000 piece of artwork made of gold, depicting a desert scene of Bedouins, camels and a tent.

...

The gifts range from the extravagant -- like the jewelry -- to the modest -- a $6 assortment of nuts and dried fruit given by the Dalai Lama to Laura Bush. Some gifts were downright odd, like the Abs Exerciser given to President Bush by the prime minister of Singapore.

What on earth was the Prime Minister of Singapore thinking when he made the gift? An Abs Exerciser as a diplomatic gift?

This blog endorses Tan Kin Lian for president

Singapore need someone to stand up to the powers that be for the little guy and unsurprisingly, I personally don't think that anyone in the establishment does that although some of them do actually believe that they are working for the little guy (but their actions are nearly always diametrically against the little guy's interests).

If you believe that Mr. Tan Kin Lian, the former CEO of NTUC Income, should run for the Elected Presidency of Singapore, then please sign the online petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/TKLFPO1/petition.html, which requires your name, NRIC, phone number and email address. He is trying to garner 100,000 signatures to support his run for elections as the Elected President (EP) or a Member of Parliament (MP). He has less than a thousand votes and is very short now of the 100,000 votes. Please spread the word and get like-minded friends and acquaintances to sign the petition.

Being the former CEO of NTUC Income, he definitely passes the stringent qualifications requirements to run for the EP. His actions in fighting for a fair resolution for the Minibond investors and in speaking out against the cuts of NTUC Income insurance bonuses have convinced me that he is a public-spirited person who will be of immense service as the EP and whose views resonate strongly with mine.

The writer of this blog, Fox, strongly endorses Mr. Tan Kin Lian.

ST: Accept sacrifices, cutbacks

From the Straits Times on 8 Nov 2008:

Accept sacrifices, cutbacks

THE Government will ensure no Singaporean falls below the poverty line as a result of the financial crisis but it cannot restore people's living standards to what they were pre-crisis.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew gave this assurance today, as he promised measures in next year's Budget to buffer lower-income earners and those without jobs from the impact of higher prices of food and other goods.

He did not provide details but said the Government would need to make a realistic assessment of how much it could afford to give out in additional utilities rebates, Workfare income supplements and other alleviating measures.

Mr Lee was speaking to Tanjong Pagar GRC constituents during an event to mark Tree Planting day.

'We all have to accept some sacrifices and cutbacks,' he said.

'But compared to our counterparts in neighbouring countries, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Myanmar, Cambodia and Vietnam, our low income earners are much better off.'

He cited two reasons for confidence in Singapore's economy in the midst of the most severe world recession since the Great Depression.

First, its reserves accumulated over decades could see the country through the crisis without it going broke.

Second, jobs are still available at the two integrated resorts and as a result of investments from high-end manufacturing companies. These include solar cell producer Renewable Energy Corporation and maker of oil and gas equipment, Halliburton.

This is strange. Singapore doesn't have an official poverty line. So, you can't have people falling below the poverty line if you haven't got a poverty line.

Unless...

ST: Still adamant that scholarship holders serve their bonds

From the Straits Times on 24 July 2008:

Still adamant that scholarship holders serve their bonds
By Zakir Hussain

MR HECTOR Yee, one of three public-sector scholarship holders who were named and shamed for breaking their bonds 10 years ago, now works at Google's headquarters in California.

So does Mr Philip Yeo consider him a loss to Singapore?

Clearly not, suggests his answer to the question. In fact, he is glad Mr Yee is not here.

Mr Yeo, chairman of Spring Singapore, is well-known for taking a tough line against government scholars who do not return to serve a single day of their bond.

Mr Yee, now 32, was such a bond-breaker. He had accepted a scholarship from the National Computer Board (NCB) to do an undergraduate degree in computer science at Cornell University in the United States.

In 1998, when he was 22 and about to complete his four-year course, he decided to stay on - sparking a controversy when his name was made public.

The issue was widely debated in the press and in Parliament.

Recalling the incident yesterday, Mr Yeo said: 'He wrote back by e-mail: I'm not coming back because I want to stay in America for the next 15 years. I see my role in life to serve the world and not Singapore alone.'

Then, in a typical no-holds-barred retort, Mr Yeo added: 'What bullshit is that, right?

'I don't think he's a loss. Thank goodness he's not here.'

Mr Yeo then went on to explain what got his goat.

'It's the attitude,' he said.

Mr Yee had asked for - and was given - an extension of one year to do a master's degree. But he later said he was considering a PhD after that. NCB advised him to get work experience first.

He then broke his bond.

Mr Yeo, then chairman of the Economic Development Board, had warned that bond-breakers would be named in public as a deterrent because of their growing numbers.

He remains adamant that scholarship holders have a 'moral obligation' to serve their bonds as the money comes from taxpayers.

Mr Yeo was himself a Colombo Plan scholar who did engineering at the University of Toronto in Canada. He returned in 1970. 'Because we are forced to come back, we helped build Singapore.'

To further underline his point, he gave this example: 'I got 100 scholars. I allow one to stay for five, 15 years, I make a mockery of the 99 guys who come home.

'At the end of the day, there's a thing called equity. If you don't want to have the obligation, don't take the scholarship...Borrow from Citibank if you want to.'

Philip Yeo's view on scholarship bond breakers are well-known but I'll just comment on one of them: namely, that scholarship holders have a 'moral obligation' to serve their bonds as the money comes from taxpayers.

I'm not really sure about the cogency of this argument. Government scholars who break their bonds usually pay the monetary penalty (principal plus interest which is above the prime rate). So, where is the actual loss to the taxpayers? PRC students absconding to the US without serving a day of or paying off their bonds are a greater loss to the Singaporean taxpayer.

Also, it's not as if the government had to cut social welfare spending in order to fund the scholarships. For some reason, I'm not convinced that the we would have fewer septuagenarians collecting old cardboard boxes in Singapore if Hector Yee didn't break his bond or that when he paid off his scholarship bond, the sum was paid back with interest to the taxpayers.

Now, if people are breaking their scholarship bonds, doesn't that suggest that there is something wrong with the scholarship-awarding organization? If your employees are resigning left and right after one month in your company, I think you should examine your HR policies rather than call people ungrateful. Maybe you shouldn't award so many scholarships.

Or even have a scholarship scheme in the first place.

Or you can redirect the funds for scholarships towards raising starting salaries or improve staff welfare.

Or hire more competent HR officers.

Or re-examine your scholarship policies.

There are so many ways to skin a cat. Calling people immoral or ungrateful certainly isn't one of them.

Bond breakers

A couple of months ago, I was asked by a professor J in the office building to review the credentials of a graduate school applicant X from my alma mater, the National University of Singapore. X is a 4th year Electrical and Computer Engineering student and should have completed his studies by now. Prof. J handed me the dossier file containing X's application materials - his transcript, resume, statement, recommendation letters, etc. I went through all of them. His application was pretty solid. Straight A's in his engineering classes according to his transcript. Top 5 in his cohort, said one of his professors in his recommendation letters. I don't even know why Prof. J asked me to look over his application.

Then, I noticed that X was from the PRC. More specifically, X is an MOE scholarship holder (as stated in his resume), the kind that is obliged to serve out his/her bond in Singapore for 6 years after graduation in exchange for a tax-money sponsored university education in Singapore. What on earth was he doing, applying to go to graduate school in the US immediately after graduation when he has signed a 6-year contract with the MOE? As far as I know, the bond does not allow its signee to undertake any postgraduate studies overseas unless he/she obtains Singapore citizenship. If the ECE department accepts X's application, there is no way they will defer his entry for 6 years. So, the only logical conclusion is that X is going to break his bond and come to the US for graduate school. Applying to graduate school is not cheap and something you do on a whim as it involves doing the GRE, TOEFl and getting people to write recommendation letters.

The irony is, for people like X who will probably 'break' his bond and mind you, not fulfill the terms of his contract, i.e. not pay the financial penalty of not serving out his bond, the Singapore government will stay silent, very very silent. By letting someone like X go, at least 100 to 150 thousand dollars of Singaporeans' tax money spent subsidizing his eduction has gone down the drain. Where is the accountability so often trumpeted by our civil service?

On the other hand, in contrast, when one of our PSC/EDB scholars does not serve out his/her bond but pays back the money to the government, plus a little bit more, the national broadsheets scream bloody murder and an esteemed, very senior civil servant, who is more likely than not to be aware of MOE scholarships for people like X, threatens to award scholarships only to females and foreigners because they are supposedly less likely to break their bonds. (Guess what? Someone in this university, who used to be an undergraduate scholarship holder from the organization formerly chaired by the aforementioned civil servant, is a female non-Singaporean bond-breaker.) We have to bear in mind that the government is financially compensated in this case and terms of the contract are indeed fulfilled to the letter, whereas for people like X, there is a clear monetary loss.

The hypocrisy of it all...

Sunday Times: Making S'pore a 'brain gain' city

From the Sunday Times on 18 May 2008:

Making S'pore a 'brain gain' city
To stay ahead globally, Singapore - like many other countries - is trying to attract talent, but efforts will be hampered if locals don't welcome them
By Warren Fernandez, Deputy Editor

Imagine if you could read the minds of people around the world to fathom what they were thinking about most.

What do you think it would it be? Global warming and the dangers climate change poses for their children?

Rising oil prices? Rising food costs?

Democracy? Human rights? Freedom?

Family? Relationships? Sex?

Well, the international polling organisation Gallup sought to find out with its first World Poll. It bills this as a 'window into the minds of six billion people in over 140 countries', or 95 per cent of the world's adult population.

And the answer?

'What the whole world wants is a good job,' Gallup chairman and chief executive officer Jim Clifton wrote in an article titled 'Global Migration Patterns and Job Creation', published last October.

'That is one of the single biggest discoveries Gallup has ever made...

'If you and I were walking down the street in Khartoum, Teheran, Berlin, Lima, Los Angeles, Baghdad, Kolkata or Istanbul, we would discover that on most days the single most dominant thought carried around the heads of most people you and I see is, 'I want a good job'.

'It is the new current state of mind, and it establishes our relationship with our city, our country and the whole world around us.'

Now this might well seem blindingly obvious, hardly something you need to poll six billion people to discover. After all, didn't then prime minister Goh Chok Tong declare in 2001 that the election then was all about 'jobs, jobs, jobs'?

Gallup's Mr Clifton, however, believes the discovery is 'game changing', to borrow one of Mrs Hillary Clinton's pet phrases.

Writing in the Gallup Management Journal, he argues: 'Humans used to desire love, money, food, shelter, safety and/or peace of mind more than anything else. The last 25 years have changed us. Now we want to have a good job.

'This changes everything for world leaders. Everything they do - from waging war to building societies - will need to be done within the new context of the human need for 'good jobs'...

'Everything leaders do must consider this new global state of mind, lest they put their cities and countries at risk.'

This too will sound familiar in Singapore, where the economic imperative has always been primary. Only in recent years have other concerns such as the need to boost creativity and enterprise, encourage environmental sustainability and strike a work-life balance gained in importance, without quite displacing economic priorities.

But the significance of the Clifton thesis lies in his view that in the face of the new global state of mind, countries and cities will have to compete for what he calls 'brain gain' to stay ahead.

'Brain gain is the 'big-bang' theory of economic development. The challenge leaders face is how to trigger brain gain in their cities,'' he adds, referring to a society's ability to draw talented people, whose exceptional abilities and knowledge have a sort of multiplier effect on its economy.

He calls such people 'stars'. By this he does not just mean intellectually bright people, but includes innovators, entrepreneurs, superstars (like brand-name chefs, architects, musicians, actors and artists) and super-mentors (political leaders, philanthropists and others who take on the challenge of developing their communities).

The more of these stars a city or country can attract and keep, the better its prospects.

The United States, he notes, has streaked ahead of Japan and Germany - which many pundits said in the 1980s would soon rule the world - because it has been singularly successful at drawing such stars from around the world.

Similarly, those predicting that China's economic juggernaut would edge past the US before long might be 'colossally wrong' as they fail to factor in the big unknown - whether China is politically and socially prepared to be a talent magnet like the US.

Singapore, with its long history of immigration, going back right to its founding in 1819, is the quintessential 'brain gain' city. It has always drawn in people from the region with the wit and the will to create a better life for themselves and their families, and in the process, for the wider community too.

In recent years, Singapore has been experiencing another wave of 'brain gain' with many more stars heading here, giving the place an even more cosmopolitan feel.

This point was brought home to me last Sunday evening, as I watched a video of a recent trip by my wife and her father to his ancestral village in Chaozhou, in southern China.

It was his first visit since he had journeyed to Singapore in the 1930s as a seven-year-old boy. Taking in the scenes of the village, reminiscent of Singapore in the 1960s and 1970s, you could not help but be struck by how very differently life would have turned out for him and his family had he not made that fateful boat trip.

Later, he met and married a fellow Teochew here, and they had five children. My mother-in-law often recounts how she climbed over the school gates in the wee hours of the morning just to make sure that her daughters got a place in a good English-speaking mission school, which laid the foundation for their successful careers today.

Yet, their story is by no means unique. Just about every family in Singapore has a similar tale. It is the Singapore story, of migrants heading to this island with big dreams, just as they continue to do to this day.

Given this backdrop, it never ceases to amaze me how strong the antipathy towards foreigners is among some Singaporeans. The issue continues to simmer and sour the ground, and is easily whipped up.

The latest incarnation of this is the angst over sweet young China waitresses giving beer-lady aunties in heartland kopitiams a run for their money.

Then, there is also the endless carping about the latest wave of immigrants filling service sector jobs although they struggle to speak English.

Let me ask a pointed question: Just what sets the Singaporean Chinese woman today apart from the 'China girls' some speak so condescendingly about other than the fact that the forebears of one got here earlier than the other?

And are those language snobs who lament in their choice Singlish that new immigrants cannot speak 'proper English' very different from the old colonialists who turned up their noses at the 'uncultured and uncouth' early immigrants - in other words, your parents and mine - to these shores?

Given our immigrant history, Singaporeans should really be more gracious, and show more compassion and understanding towards newcomers to the island, to help them settle in.

They don't speak English? Well, they will soon learn, as their children surely will.

Being open and embracing towards newcomers is not only the decent thing to do, but it might also be in our own self-interest.

As Mr Clifton puts it: 'Today's explorers migrate to the cities that are most likely to maximise innovation and entrepreneurial talents and skills. Wherever they can freely migrate is where the next economic empires will rise. San Francisco, Mumbai and Dublin have become hotbeds of job creation. This phenomenon has occurred in other hot cities from Austin to Boston and Seoul to Singapore.'

The Government will have to do its part to woo talent here, adding that critical buzz to the city, and tackling issues such as rising housing costs, lack of office space or school places. But these efforts alone will not be enough, unless Singaporeans make those drawn here feel welcome.

So the next time you feel like letting fly against the growing number of foreigners here, remember this - you and I are the products of an earlier wave of immigration and 'brain gain'.

warren@sph.com.sg

This is such a blatant one-sided piece of propaganda from one of the Straits Times' finest. I don't know where to start but as the Fox will be out of the house for the rest of the day, he shall postpone his comments on this article to a later time. There is certainly one thing we are sure of: someone knows which side his bread is buttered...

ST: Appoint a woman to Cabinet? Base it 'on ability'

Got this from the Straits Times (3 Apr 2008)

Appoint a woman to Cabinet? Base it 'on ability'

MS GRACE Fu would very much like to see a woman appointed a full Cabinet minister, but not 'just to satisfy some gender or race requirement'.

Ms Fu, the Senior Minister of State for National Development and Education, is the first woman office holder to comment on the Cabinet changes announced last Saturday.

On women ministers, she said: 'I am sure when PM sees someone who has that capability and competency, there is no doubt that he will put one of us in that position.'

Speaking to reporters at an event at Pathlight School yesterday, she said that, as for herself, she would much prefer to move up 'at a steady pace where the PM is comfortable with my ability'.

Ms Fu, who was promoted in the latest round of changes and given a new role in Education, plans to visit schools and talk to people to better understand the issues.

I don't get it. More Singaporean women go to university than Malay Singaporeans or Indian Singaporeans. This probably has been the case for most of Singapore's history since independence. Yet, we have Indian and Malay (male) full ministers but no female full ministers. Statistically speaking, it is impossible. The only way that can be possible would be that the variance in the distribution of 'talent' in the Indian and Malay male population is much wider than that of the general Singaporean population but that is very unlikely.

The conclusion is obvious. Either people are appointed to the cabinet on account of their race or women are discriminated against. Of course, it could be both but it is impossible to have a selection process that does not take race into account and discriminate against women but yet gives us a cabinet with ethnic minorities but not a single woman. Impossible.